You said, “As far as I know, no state allows you to shoot someone who has stolen your property but is fleeing with it, unless that person does something to indicate he’s a threat to you” and I posted proof the State of Washington has that exact issue in statute.
Now you babble about “self defense”. Why?
> Now you babble about “self defense”. Why?
First of all I’m not “babbling”. I’m writing clear, cogent sentences. And don’t mistake my motives. I’m sympathetic toward the defendant in this case. I saw nothing in the original article that had anything to do with self-defense, though. That’s why I posted a link to the second one.
As for your “proof the State of Washington has that exact issue in statute”, that would depend on whether shooting someone through the rear window of a vehicle is interpreted as “arresting”. I don’t think it would be under most circumstances. I believe the defendant was found not guilty because of the claim of self-defense (explained in the second article).
Looks like that was the justification;
"In the moments before pulling his weapon and firing, Gerlach said he saw what he thought was a gun in Kaluza-Graham’s right hand. He said he could only see silhouettes, but was afraid Kaluza-Graham was pointing a pistol at him through his back window.
“I thought, ‘This is it,’” Gerlach said."